Lynx-BirdLife Taxonomic Checklist (1 Viewer)

[njlarsen]

Western Grey-collared Becard Pachyramphus uropygialis

Going only by the ranges in Clements, this could easily be only uropygialis which would have range

W Mexico (Sonora, Sinaloa, Durango, Michoacán and Guerrero)

Edit: The Howell and Webb range map indicates that might be right

Niels

 

[Melanie]

I'm curious whether the HBW and BirdLife Illustrated Checklick will only illustrate the Nihoa millerbird or the extinct Laysan millerbird too.

 

[McMadd]

So, where are we with this?

1. Tobias criteria ignores molecular (and vocal?) evidence and is widely criticised
2. Other Lynx publications (e.g. Recently published Indonesian guide) influence decision making
3. Non-passerines have been rushed with focus on "at risk" taxa
4. Consistency is lacking in decisions made
5. Other authorities are ignored (reciprocal to maintain status and sales over and above actual biology - applies to ALL authorities, I stress)

Discuss...

 

[lewis20126]

So, where are we with this?

1. Tobias criteria ignores molecular (and vocal?) evidence and is widely criticised
2. Other Lynx publications (e.g. Recently published Indonesian guide) influence decision making
3. Non-passerines have been rushed with focus on "at risk" taxa
4. Consistency is lacking in decisions made
5. Other authorities are ignored (reciprocal to maintain status and sales over and above actual biology - applies to ALL authorities, I stress)

Discuss...

Point 2; not all, compare..

Cheers, a

 

[Andrew Spencer]

I'll admit I find it hard to believe that anyone can take the Lynx-Birdlife Taxonomy seriously. Seems riddled with poor decisions, inconsistent reasoning, and a deeply flawed methodology.

 

[GMK]

- yes agree vocals seem to be being dismissed across the board, or at least not weighted sufficiently in Tobias et al.

Whatever you might think of the system, and I will happily criticise aspects of it myself, this is a demonstrably ludicrous comment, but then again Alan has never been one to shy away from making his opinions as strident as possible.

Just to give an example of how seriously vocals are employed, Peter Boesman spent the better part of the entire period between publication of Vol. 1 and just recently studying the vocalisations of a huge number of the taxa actually subject to taxonomic change, or thought meritorious of investigation. Obviously, published works by others containing vocal comparisons were considered too.

Peter’s original analyses of vocal data in support of many of the novel arrangements will be available to view on HBW Alive in due course. Needless to say, I am sure people might still criticise these. However, not only will transparency be maintained, but rushed commentaries about not paying sufficient attention to vocal data will become self-evidently erroneous. Furthermore, it will also be obvious that plenty of notice has been taken of genetic studies (they just haven’t been utilised in scoring). Personally, I might have cited more molecular work, but equally (like Josep and Nigel) I would not have assumed, as some here seem to do, that genetic distance automatically a species does make.

 

[njlarsen]

Guy, thank you for this inside look. Could you describe a little more about how this seemingly contradictory statement worked:

plenty of notice has been taken of genetic studies (they just haven’t been utilised in scoring)

Niels

 

[GMK]

But this may as well not be a decision at all.
They might just be sticking to the letter of their designated authority - i.e., the first volume of the HBW and BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist, published in 2014 - despite the evidence they cite in the comments contradicts the nomenclature that was adopted there.

However, HBW Alive has been updated to reflect current understanding of taxonomy, i.e. two species, one called S. hadorami and the other S. butleri, so their (IUCN’s) overall authority has moved with the times.

I’d guess that it has to be a clerical error. I can’t really understand DMW’s post #602 at all. It’s patently incorrect to use the name omanensis, which is a synonym (as admitted even by those who coined the name). He’d almost be on firmer ground arguing that there’s only one species of Strix in the deserts of the Middle East.

 

[GMK]

Guy, thank you for this inside look. Could you describe a little more about how this seemingly contradictory statement worked:

Niels

Easily: molecular data have been constantly employed to help decide linear sequence of taxa, placement at ranks above species, and to a lesser extent to note whether a novel taxonomic arrangement at species rank has or lacks support from genes. However, in these cases, the genetic data still don’t contribute (positively or negatively) to scoring, because Tobias et al. (2010) elected not to attempt to extrapolate their system to such studies. So, no contradictions.

 

[njlarsen]

Thanks

 

[lewis20126]

Whatever you might think of the system, and I will happily criticise aspects of it myself, this is a demonstrably ludicrous comment, but then again Alan has never been one to shy away from making his opinions as strident as possible.

Just to give an example of how seriously vocals are employed, Peter Boesman spent the better part of the entire period between publication of Vol. 1 and just recently studying the vocalisations of a huge number of the taxa actually subject to taxonomic change, or thought meritorious of investigation. Obviously, published works by others containing vocal comparisons were considered too.

Peter’s original analyses of vocal data in support of many of the novel arrangements will be available to view on HBW Alive in due course. Needless to say, I am sure people might still criticise these. However, not only will transparency be maintained, but rushed commentaries about not paying sufficient attention to vocal data will become self-evidently erroneous. Furthermore, it will also be obvious that plenty of notice has been taken of genetic studies (they just haven’t been utilised in scoring). Personally, I might have cited more molecular work, but equally (like Josep and Nigel) I would not have assumed, as some here seem to do, that genetic distance automatically a species does make.

Scottish Crossbill. That IS ludicrous. What is the official Lynx / BLI explanation for that? £100 to Birdlife tonight if you can provide a coherent explanation of this, which is consistent with the other Loxia, the type specimen and speciation in Loxia, if any.

Cheers, alan

 

[lewis20126]

Guy

I'll give you to Monday night on that - I realise you might have to contact Josep and / or Nigel if your response needs to draw on as yet unpublished data from a global review of the plain-winged Loxia.

Cheers, a

 

[DMW]

Easily: molecular data have been constantly employed to help decide linear sequence of taxa, placement at ranks above species, and to a lesser extent to note whether a novel taxonomic arrangement at species rank has or lacks support from genes. However, in these cases, the genetic data still don’t contribute (positively or negatively) to scoring, because Tobias et al. (2010) elected not to attempt to extrapolate their system to such studies. So, no contradictions.

Guy, can you expand on the use of genetic data at species level, which is obviously what this thread is mostly about? What does "note whether a novel taxonomic arrangement at species rank has support from genes" mean in practical terms if "genetic data still don't contribute...to scoring"?

Does this mean genetic data have no influence whatsoever on species-level Birdlife taxonomy (in which case, presumably "note" = "ignore"), or does it mean the Tobias scores are "reviewed" to fit the genetic data if it is particularly robust and contradicts the initial scoring?

 

[DMW]

He’d almost be on firmer ground arguing that there’s only one species of Strix in the deserts of the Middle East.

I thought there was just one species of Strix in the deserts of the Middle East...

 

[Nutcracker]

Scottish Crossbill. That IS ludicrous. What is the official Lynx / BLI explanation for that? £100 to Birdlife tonight if you can provide a coherent explanation of this, which is consistent with the other Loxia, the type specimen and speciation in Loxia, if any.

Cheers, alan

:clap::clap::clap:

Particularly given the lack of documented sound recordings of the type specimen, when sound recordings are widely cited as essential to its identification

 

[lewis20126]

Well Madanga is not an Anthus here. Is it or isn't it embedded in that genus? That is directly relevant here surely?

Cheers, a

 

[Nutcracker]

I thought there was just one species of Strix in the deserts of the Middle East...

Two in IOC (or am I just missing some humour here?!)

 

[Nutcracker]

Well Madanga is not an Anthus here. Is it or isn't it embedded in that genus? That is directly relevant here surely?

Cheers, a

Deeply embedded in Anthus, according to Alström et al. 2015.

 

[lewis20126]

o

Deeply embedded in Anthus, according to Alström et al. 2015.

So has this work been ignored is there an unpublished update of which we are not aware? I guess we'll have to wait for the book. Quite amazing that it won't even align with a very significant publication, published just weeks ago..by the same publisher. If you want an example, look no further than Olive-backed Sunbird, as noted by James above.

Cheers, alan

 

[Nutcracker]

The only thing I can think of is that some hypothetical evidence had shown the sample in Alström et al. to have been a misidentified pipit specimen, but (a) I'm not aware of any such evidence, and (b) it seems to me highly implausible that they would have made such an error.

EDIT: just checked; I see IOC (scroll to end of page) also still retain Madanga in its own monotypic genus, though in Motacillidae not Zosteropidae where it was before.